I am feeling extremely tense as so many people must be that Trump has surged ahead in the polls, and may yet get into the White House and destroy the world. Only a few days ago I was inquiring about placing a bet at Ladbrokes that Clinton would win the presidential election. Ah, I believe in yesterday!

This afternoon a 'leftie' campaigner outside the former Woolworths store in Abergavenny came up and thrust a booklet in my hand about non violent campaigners for change. One of them was Leon Trotsky, rather entertainingly.

Most of them seem to have been Gandhi like ascetics. I automatically groped for some money to give her. I did give it to her.

It was then that I asked her what part of the southern hemisphere she came from, a polite question prompted by her accent. She told me she was Australian.

She went on to say that in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa where white people have accents like hers, a great push was made to exterminate the native inhabitants. This is true, and anyone who has had the patience to read my posts will know how much I abominate this sort of thing.

I assumed we would agree about most things, so I launched into how I had been afraid she came from Zimbabwe where Mugabe was destroying everything, just as Trump would quite probably destroy the planet if he became president.

I had her quite wrong. She began to tell me how terrible Clinton was. Had I seen what Julian Assange had revealed about her on Wikileaks? I said I hadn't, but I knew he was on her case.

''Oh, he's not on her case!'', she said. He had just revealed what we ought to know. Did I know what terrible things Obama was doing? He was being nasty to Putin. Without provocation, he had encircled Russia with nuclear warheads.

I mused that it might have something to do with his invading Ukraine and killing and imprisoning his own people. She told me Obama was also killing his own people, and became wide eyed about the allegation that Putin had invaded Ukraine; she claimed the Crimea had always been part of Russia.

She also warned me against taking any notice of the mainstream media. I was feeling a bit dazed by this time,but said sweetly that as different sources contradicted each other, it was often best to reserve judgement. There was no shame in saying, ''I don't know what the truth is.''

She said, ''Oh, you can trust Wikileaks!'' It was only later I began to feel frustrated, and annoyed with myself for giving her money - a very small amount mercifully.

This woman may just be going off on a limb in a highly individualistic way. But perhaps she is an example of the regressive left making common cause with Milo's alt right.

If this tree hugging leftie doesn't actively support a racist, misogynistic, climate change denying, cripple hating moron who is almost certainly a serious sex offender, she truly loathes and opposes the only person who can stop him getting his tiny orange finger on the nuclear button. It's a case of not A but not not A.

Milo is a Jew in the matrilineal line which is the one that counts traditionally. This didn't stop him wearing an iron cross a few years ago. He enjoys 'black dick' and has an 'anti-white bedroom policy', but hangs out with David Duke's 'racial realists' who are rooting for Trump.

Of course, Milo was brought up a Catholic and has never got over it. Millennials such as my son Byron see what I would call a false equivalence between Clinton and Trump. Byron says it is like having to choose between Satan and Satan's stupid younger brother.

I don't agree at all. Bill Maher and Sam Harris deprecate very much the meme that the lesser of two evils is still evil. If you believe
that, you are too good to live in this wicked world.

All politicians are liars and most are fairly ruthless. That is the nature of reality. That is the kind of person who generally seeks political office. There is nothing we can do about that.

When people say Hillary is the lesser of two evils, they are adapting an old saying. It doesn't mean she literally is evil, and she probably isn't.

As Sam Harris says, Trump is a terrible human being. Hillary is only a compromised one. She probably lies about 25% of the time. He lies about 75% of the time even when the lie is as obvious as the nose on his face.

The 'Clinton body count' conspiracy theory is based on a basic misunderstanding of reality. It is quite true that a lot of people who have met the Clintons have died - eventually.

It is like the story of the curse on King Tut's tomb. Everyone who broke into it died -eventually. Their deaths were not generally premature. Does anyone seriously think that if they hadn't broken into the tomb, they would have been immortal?

A woman who worked for Hillary had an ex-husband who may or may not have sent indecent text messages to an under age girl. The age of consent in New York is 17, higher than in almost any European country. You could marry at 16 in this country, although I wouldn't recommend it.

However alarming and unwelcome the messages may have been, they were text messages only. He didn't touch her physically.

Trump is alleged to have raped a 13 year old girl who was tied down and unable to defend herself. When she begged him to stop, he is alleged to have hit her in the face, saying he could do whatever he liked.

He is also alleged to have threatened her with death, should she tell anyone. Almost unbelievably, a witness exists who is prepared to depose that this is true.

I asked my partner how likely he thought it was in a percentage that Trump was guilty. He said, ''99.9%''.

Think of the implications if he wins in November, and is indicted before he can take office in February. Don't you find this story very distressing? It is like something Jimmy Savile would do. If you have a vote in this election, do the right thing. Don't let this evil and childish man become the most powerful person in the world! You know that if Putin disses him, he will have a nuclear tantrum.

Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total

It is counter intuitive that Assange - once the poster boy of the liberal left is now instrumental in Trump's campaign. Russia is probably the key here.

'Russia Today' aka RT had an interesting if not entirely reliable programme on the American prison system. It's quite amusing juxta posed with Putin consigning his critics to gulags. ''I am going to ruin their lives'', he says.

RT had a fawning piece on Assange, including an indulgent interview with his doting mother. He was made out to be quite a martyr. They didn't give coverage like that to Pussy Riot!

RT had a feeble slot, attempting to show that Jo Cox MP had been assassinated in a false flag operation by the British state. We've heard only yesterday that Russia had stepped up its spying in the UK in a way not known since the Cold War, and that computers are one of the battlegrounds.

I thought this meant spreading misinformation through the net. But that was not the main thrust of attack. It was more a case of hacking computer systems and making things disappear.

Putin is a gangsterish character. It is like the Wild East. Russia is a kleptocracy.

We can see why Trump would idolise him. They are both cold and amoral, and probably psychopaths.Trump hero worships him now.

But Putin is cleverer - which is not difficult. We are on the brink of findng out Trump's Russian involvements. It is an unstable relationship, no more reliable than Hitler and Stalin's Non Aggression Pact.

Trump is thin skinned, vengeful, conscienceless, stupid, and doesn't understand what's going on. If he gets into the White House, Putin will offend or insult him eventually.

It could lead to nuclear Armageddon. Maybe Trump's body will be lying in his nuclear bunker under the White House as the Russians invade across the Bering straits and from the opposite direction too. Putin will be ordering his officers to bring him proof that Trump really is dead.

Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:10 am; edited 1 time in total

Milo is not a fan of the girl who was shot by the Taliban for daring to go to school - but survived, the writer of 'I am Malala.'

He thinks Malala's fashion sense is nil. She is so dowdy, not a particle of style!

Milo goes for style over substance every time. So do all Trump's followers. If you point out his demerits, they say ''I don't care.''

Angry people go for cruel leaders. When his lack of impulse control makes him mock some unoffending person's girth or face or disability, they don't think he is an infantile nob. They admire him for releasing the raw primitive drives they have been forced to suppress in themselves.

When he tells blatant and transparent lies without batting an eyelid, they see that as telling it like it is. Lying is the new integrity!

In this post modernist world, truth has no meaning. If he is what you want, Sam Harris would say you're a nihilist.

Psychopaths can imitate leadership qualities. They can ooze charisma so everyone looks round and becomes excited when they come into a room.

But they can't deliver. They carry destruction lightly in both hands.

Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:12 am; edited 1 time in total

You will often hear intelligent and educated people stand up for freedom of speech no matter what. The late Carl Sagan used to do this.

He said that in a free society, good ideas will always drive out bad ones. He seemed to think that people could tell the difference.

This is of course a belief that can't survive contact with reality. Before Hitler's election, journalists used to hold his ideas on race up to ridicule. One spoof article examined the question of whether he had Mongolian blood.

He was such a clown that people felt sorry for him. When he began to look dangerous, a battle raged in the press for the soul of Germany. We know who won - at least up to 1945.

A Christian hate preacher in the US uses his first amendment rights to free speech, in order to put the message out that gays should be stoned to death as it says in the Old Testament.

He has a German wife of Polish parentage who used not to be religious at all.She has gone totally over to evangelicalism.

She home schools her nine children and is pregnant with a tenth. She thought there was something seriously wrong in the state of the USA that Hillary Clinton was even in the running to be President.

She said seriously that a country where the head of state is a woman or a child is cursed. She quoted the Bible on 'Woe to thee O land when thy king is a child!' - but fraudulently amended it to 'or thy queen is a woman!'

Oddly enough, the Bible doesn't say that - at least not in so many words. She did not think women should even vote.

The right wing extremist Ann Coulter who wrote 'In Trump We Trust' is another woman who thinks women shouldn't vote. This is because she expects women to be left-liberal. If only!

I mentioned ruefully in a pub yesterday that I had put a stake on at William Hill for Hillary to win the White House. Although there had been some jitters, it looked like a sound investment.

Some guy I hadn't seen before started bragging that he was Trump's fourth cousin. He had another cousin who had put on a £20 bet for Trump to win. He was now raking in it, not just in the betting shop but the pubs where he had laid informal bets.

The guy started telling me how Trump had some interesting ideas - about what should be done to Mexicans for instance. While I was searching for words, he became caught up in verbal exchanges with others. It looked as if he had an unhealthy interest in Nazism, and enjoyed bragging about his prowess as a street fighter.

Today I was approached by a person with a confident, rather bullish manner. He gave me some pro-Trump propaganda.

He said Trump was for peace. It was Hillary who had supported war. She was a murderer.

I said, ''I suppose you believe in the Clinton body count!'' ''Yes, I do'', he said proudly. He had seen videos about it on the internet.

He also believed implicitly that Edward Heath had not only raped hordes of boys but thrown them to their deaths from his yacht 'The Morning Cloud.' After all, if he had not done it, where were they now?

I said they hadn't been reported missing so how did he know they had even existed?

He said, ''You're just like my grandmother! You're a woman so you support Hillary just because she's a woman. And you'd vote for Margaret Thatcher just because she was a woman.''

I exclaimed that I had never voted for Margaret Thatcher, and would never have considered it. He then came out with some scandal about Hillary on 'Paedophile Island.'

I asked him if he had heard about Trump's friendship with the convicted paedophile Epstein? Did he know that a woman had accused Trump of raping her when she was 13?

Had he heard the allegations other women had made about Trump? Had he heard the allegations that Trump had made about Trump?

I can see why this guy identifies with Trump. Their self confidence is not conditional on facts or evidence. He was completely confident that I would support Thatcher, an assertion with no basis in reality.

It was Bertrand Russell who said the whole trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure they're right while wiser folk are full of doubts.

In our post truth world, it is easy to transfer Trump's demerits to Clinton. On a TV show recently, a contributor accused a woman of supporting Hillary Clinton because she was having a lesbian affair with her.

He then said he had just made it up. ''But'' he said, ''I've said it, so now all these people will believe it!''

The red neck and ignorant part of the population of the USA have spoken. They want change.

They will get change. Perhaps it will involve a tiny orange finger pressing the button.

Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:15 am; edited 1 time in total

Sarah Churchwell, a lecturer in American literature, appeared on Question Time last night. David Dimbleby asked her if she was surprised that Donald Trump had won the presidential election.

She said she was totally shocked and totally heart broken in a way she never had been about her country before. Asked to account for it, she wouldn't offer a simple or single explanation.

She thought one factor was that a great number of people had fallen for a disinformation and character assassination campaign against Hillary Clinton. The guy who was pontificating at me so confidently and so ignorantly today was one of them.

He said that if Clinton had won, she would have been impeached. He was shouting at me about her e-mails. This was after she had been cleared of criminality.

What about Trump's e-mails? What about his connections with Russia? What about Trump University? What about his threatening or promising to do unconstitutional and illegal things?

Trump University is a big scam. It is thought that Trump may be impeached over this before he even gets into office.

Milo and his friends on Breitbart ,and the Alt Right generally, are hostile to gays, minorities and women. They celebrated Donald Trump's surprise victory with Nazi salutes.

Trump has tried to distance himself from them, but his campaign manager Steve Bannon is a Breitbart insider who has recently repeated the meme that 'cancer is preferable to feminism.' He was quoting Milo.

Milo has just been invited back to his alma mater, the Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys, from which he was expelled in the 90s. It was to give the boys the benefit of his matured wisdom.

At the last minute, Theresa May forbade the speech. She had concerns that it would be inflammatory. It would be sure to be of interest to the Department of Educations's counter extremism unit.

When Milo upsets and silences people, his comment is 'feck your feelings!' Now he has accused Theresa May of fascism and being anti-gay! He has also grizzled that he is being bullied.

His self awareness, like his conscience, appear to be in a different galaxy. Feck you too, Milo. Your fine feelings are fake!

It's just as well Milo is not addressing impressionable adolescents, given the fluency with which he utters falsehoods and ignorance. Among his misogynist rhetoric, barely detectable in the bombast is the statement that women never have orgasms.

If he has been exclusively gay all these years, he can't be expected to know any different from experience. But that's all the more reason why he should have the humility to listen to those who know what they're talking about. This statement is a good representative sample of Milo's reliability.

I'm not saying orgasm can't be a difficulty for human females. My real maternal grandmother who looked like a shy old lady confided in me, in her rural Pembrokeshire accent, ''I've never had an orgasm in my life.'' I laughed hysterically. The words were so incongruous with her appearance.

I imagine that neither she nor the only man she ever cared for, had had any sex education. She probably didn't know much about her own anatomy.

In Victorian times, a great authority dismissed the idea that women could have sexual feelings as 'a vile aspersion.' But the Victorians didn't have the internet and Channel 5.

It's now said - I don't know how accurately - that 10% of women are anorgasmic. I can't say why this is, but clitoral phimosis may have something to do with it.

This is less serious in its effects than penile phimosis, as the urethra is separate in women. What it means is that the labia and clitoral hood are unnecessarily prominent, and the hood will not retract to reveal the clitoris which is invisible or just barely discernible.

Although this can be cured by surgery, there is a lot to be said for not allowing a surgeon's knife anywhere near your genitals. I will just invade my own privacy briefly, and say that I can't be bothered. Once you've discovered the joys of vaginal orgasm, what does it matter if your clitoris won't come out to play?

The saying is that men reach their sexual peak at 18 but women don't reach it till 30. This may be a coy allusion to the possibility of discovering vaginal orgasms at that age. It's not likely to happen any younger.

Elaine Morgan thought the difficulty women have in attaining orgasm is one of the 'scars of evolution.' There is some discussion of this under 'We are All Mermaids and Mermen' in this forum. What it is not is an anti-male plot.

If 10% of women are anorgasmic, we can infer that 90% of the female population can achieve orgasm, at least sometimes. Milo is an angry child without knowledge.

Do you think that just as babies being circumcised are said not to feel pain by those who do it to them so do men acquiring women as domestic slaves and using them for the gratuitous purposes of skivvying and screwing profess that unhappy women are " hormonal " when they protest their distress and " not interested in sex " when they are clearly not aroused by being raped ?

It'll be difficult if not impossible to answer this question without making a fool of myself. I have reason to think that in pre-modern societies - pre-internet anyway - people often didn't know what they were doing, nor did they know where certain organs were or even that they existed.

They might have known the basics in the sense of which orifice to use, but that would be about it. So even if a sexual encounter was apparently consensual, it would be painful rather than enjoyable for at least one person.

The powerful might just not have been bothered. John F Kennedy was notorious for plunging straight in without any refinements. He was a busy man. He didn't have time to faff around.

I will just mention Ireland and Algeria as two places where this ignorance and brusqueness still prevail. Unhelpful religious mores are no doubt implicated.

In the Arab world people have traditionally not even been aware of the existence of the natural lubrication produced by an aroused woman. If they did catch sight of it, they would attribute it to an STD.

Generally speaking, in traditional societies which were dominated by oppressive religious dogma, if you were a woman, the usual sexual technique would make you wince.

If you weren't actually in pain, you could count yourself lucky. Expecting pleasure would be presumptuous. It would be an undreamed of bonus.

I have a positively unhealthy tendency to idolise the new atheist Sam Harris. So it's good he sometimes proves he is only human. It brings me down to earth.

Sam Harris abominates FGM so much, he has come close to saying the perpetrators should be executed. Asked about male circumcision, he had a quite different attitude.

He invaded his own privacy by saying this had happened to him. He didn't say why but it used to be almost universal in the US.

Although he is a Jew in the matrilineal line, I thought he had the good luck to grow up without religion. Unfortunately, this is one tradition that Jewish parents usually comply with, when they have abandoned everything else.

He said that he didn't know if he would have chosen to do this had his only child been a boy and not a girl. I was surprised at him. I thought he saw religion as a deplorable thing, especially in its effects on children.

But people are often insensitive when they have been on the receiving end of something. They often say, ''It didn't do me any harm.'' They just don't want to consider that it might have done.

In the past, all sorts of surgery was performed on babies without anaesthetic. Until very recently we believed a medical myth that babies could not feel pain, just as Descartes thought animals could not feel pain.

We saw a programme called 'It's a Boy!' a good number of years ago. As the name of a boy featured in it, is already in the public domain, I suppose I can say it was Joshua Hawksworth.

He had a northern English surname inherited from his father and a Jewish identity inherited from his mother. His father had not even been aware that it was happening at the time, and he had not consented to it, but he saw a video of his son's eighth day of life celebration, and he was traumatised and disgusted.

I recounted it to a friend who may not want to be acknowledged. He said. ''As babies cry all the time anyway, how do you know it was in pain?'' I said, ''The pain cry is quite distinct. Anyway, it stands to reason that it hurts.''

Actually, veteran guests at brits, will often say triumphantly that the baby doesn't cry. The response from opponents is that he can't cry because he is in traumatic shock.

A baby can't consent, but it is argued that his unborn soul consented at Sinai. You have to admire the chutzpah of this argument. But it has nothing else going for it.

Another argument is that it is hygienic. So why not cut a baby's arms and legs off too?

That would also be hygienic. You'd never have to wash them again.

It's not particularly hygienic when the mohel sucks the blood away and gives the child herpes as happened a few years ago. If I didn't know better, I would think it was a way to perform a sex act on a new born baby in front of witnesses, and get paid for it, instead of going to prison.

And then there are the babies who turn blue and die. Traditionally, their identities have been expunged from the family narrative.

If it didn't have the support of religion and culture, nobody could argue that this was acceptable. But we're so used to it that it seems normal. There's nothing that someone won't justify.

I recounted it to a friend who may not want to be acknowledged. He said. ''As babies cry all the time anyway, how do you know it was in pain?'' I said, ''The pain cry is quite distinct. Anyway, it stands to reason that it hurts.''

Either you recite my genealogy for a 1000 generations or I am some nameless Muggle like Cho's husband and the new headmaster._________________Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet

Ella Whelan has appeared on 'The Big Questions' for a discussion on digital media and voting. She looked sulky and bulky. Her size has doubled since last year.

I would normally be too polite to mention this irrelevant fact, but Ella is strongly in favour of criticising women on media outlets for being fat. I hate to be so unkind but I am sorrowfully deferring to the wishes of Her Vacant Chunkiness.

People were afraid that digital media was making political opinion very polarised.But Ella came out in favour of polarisation. When people thought certain standards were desirable, Ella immediately started complaining about attempts to control and censor.

Chi Onawurah MP said that if you looked for a site on obesity, you knew there would be adverts for well known fast food restaurants down the side.There should be some regulation.

The word 'regulation' resounded through Ella's skull. Who were we to say that other people were so mindless that they couldn't resist going to MacDonalds? Chi said it was well known that advertising worked. Otherwise, no one would bother with it.

She added that no one was above the law or beyond regulation. Ella said that she did not favour any regulation. There should be absolute freedom of speech online.

Owen Jones spoke about the pack mentality on Twitter. Allowing trolling online did not encourage free speech. It prevented it. People are afraid to say what they really feel.

They are afraid of being mobbed and shamed by a great pack of strangers all over the world. It is terrifying when it happens. There is also something called doxing. This went further than menacing you.

It meant putting out personal details about you so people knew where you were or trying to get you sacked. This often succeeded.

Fake News sites had convinced people that the Pope supported Trump and that Hillary Clinton was part of a paedophile ring. He went on to say that fake news is not confined to the internet.

The BBC had shown the Battle of Orgreave tapes in the wrong sequence so it looked as if the miners were attacking the police instead of the other way round. Newspapers had told terrible lies about the Hillsborough disaster with horrendous results.

The print media had played to people's existing prejudices. During Cameron's tenure, disabled people were increasingly assaulted in the streets.

Ella objected that it was terrible to say that you were a discerning person who could tell fake news from true, but there were other lesser people out there who were stupid enough to believe that Hillary Clinton had a paedophile brothel disguised as a pizza take away.Who was to make this distinction between you and them?

A professional fact checker said that no one was immune to falling for fake news. He didn't think anyone had suggested that. I can confirm I met a nutter who believes Hillary Clinton holidays on Paedophile Island.

Readers will have noticed a big contradiction in Ella's philosophy which no one challenged her on. She believes in complete freedom to insult real people regardless of the effect it has on them.

But she believes it is wrong to imply that hypothetical people might exist who are stupid enough to be influenced by adverts and lies? Why? Will their theoretical feelings be hurt?

Ella even began to say that no one had the ability or the right to say what the truth was. Why was fake news worse than real news?

Owen Jones asked her how she would react if her face was plastered all over the internet with a headline saying she was the head of a world wide drugs cartel. Would she just shrug off this false news and not bother to deny it?

Ella indicated that that was the cost of a free society. God, she makes freedom sound vile!

One success for social media was that tampon tax, in place since 1973, has now been abolished. A very nice young lady in the audience had run the campaign online. She had had a lot of support.

She had also received disgusting sexist abuse. But she saw even that in a positive light. Now it was all set in stone online, people couldn't continue to deny that sexism existed.

''But some of this stuff is psychotic!'' said Nicky Campbell. Female MPs had so much abuse online. It put women off political careers.

The trolls were not in general impressive people. They were keyboard warriors hiding behind anonymity. They were pathetic.

Owen Jones said he'd had all sorts of abuse from trolls. He wasn't terribly bothered by it, but tweeters said he should be bumped off for being gay.

Chi said she was interested in Ella's view that you should be able to say anything you liked online. If you gave someone a lot of abuse in the street, you could be arrested.

Ella reiterated that she also supported people who were obnoxious in the street. She refused to make a distinction between free speech and hate speech.

She had written on 'so-called sexism' Sexist remarks on women turned out to be legitimate criticisms of women for being fat. What was really sexist was to complain about the vile abuse of women.

So she didn't approve of complaining although that is also speech. If you listened carefully you could hear a slight softening in her position.

Whereas she had approved of death threats against Kate Smurthwaite, she now said that death threats were illegal, and the implication was that she had no objection to their being illegal.

When the death of Jo Cox was referenced, Ella was pathetic. She said, ''I don't think we should necessarily' curtail hate speech on the internet because of that, and anyway it had no connection with the murder. She went straight from dismissing the importance of Jo Cox's murder, to saying trolls were saddoes who wouldn't hurt a mouse.

Ella has denied that mindless people exist but I'm afraid she has proved that they do. What is so objectionable about her rabid commitment to what she calls free speech is that is unyielding in the face of reality. She puts an abstract so-called principle above the lives and welfare of real people.

People with absolute beliefs are like death. They're anti-life.

Last edited by marianneh on Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:23 pm; edited 3 times in total

Truth is the result of debate : our understandings are always approximations ... we create ideas and offer them up as descriptions of the world and they can lead us into Actions which cause unpleasant Sensations in others who protest their Emotions to us as a result ... to refuse to understand these protests from others and to prefer an idea in the face of the evidence which demonstrates that the Cognitions which lead those Actions which result in these Sensations which cause these Emotions is basically to admit Hatred - ?

I am in " Repwblic " to write a mischevous piece of " administration " but do you understand why I named Abigail and explained myself, you and Daf as meeting in " Z " - i.e. you understand what it stands for and who [ ] is ? ... I want to give you my temporary number - my main phone's SIM is fried - so click on the top bar next to " Logout " to read my " Private Message " please.

I've read the message. Some of these people make me very uneasy, and they have from the beginning. But in my naivity, I did not realise exactly how bad they were. I even thought it might be worthwhile to enter into dialogue with them. I don't think so now.

Last edited by marianneh on Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ella Whelan is wrong in saying that Jo Cox MP did not receive a lot of awful misogynist abuse online in the months and weeks leading up to her brutal murder. She did.

Another female MP who has suffered both racist and misogynistic insults and threats online is Diane Abbot. Not all the badly behaved people who target her are spotty nobodies living in their mothers' basements. The Brexit secretary, David Davies has also made Diane Abbot the object of his sexist texts.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, some of Diane Abbot's relatives have been beaten up in the street or otherwise attacked for being black. Diane has also been accused - almost certainly wrongly - by certain internet wallahs of anti-white prejudice and anti-Semitism.

Diane did show surprising ignorance of Jewish history during the Kengate crisis, but this is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic. Nothing about her personality as revealed in public suggests that she is at all racist, quite the reverse.